对本文的总体评价为：（1-5分，5分最高）

可参考以下标准：

• 5分：佳作、开创性成果
• 4分：合格的优秀论文、可直接接收发表
• 3分：小改（Minor）后可接收
• 2分：需要大改（Major）
• 1分：价值有限，即使修改后亦不能发表
• 0分：本wiki不收录0分的论文。。。

有必要时，可以在文中任何地方插入你的签名。

The Four Horsemen of Machine Learning in Finance

1. Matthew Francis Dixon, Illinois Institute of Technology
2. Igor Halperin, New York University (NYU) - NYU Tandon School of Engineering

2019

SSRN

machine learning, asset management, optimal hedging, neural networks, price impact

Machine Learning has been used in the financial services industry for over 40 years, yet it is only in recent years that it has become more pervasive across investment management and trading. Machine learning provides a more general framework for financial modeling than its linear parametric predecessors, generalizing archetypal modeling approaches, such as factor modeling, derivative pricing, portfolio construction, optimal hedging with model-free, data-driven approaches which are more robust to model risk and capture outliers. Yet despite their demonstrated potential, barriers to adoption have emerged – most of them artifacts of the sociology of this inter-disciplinary field. Based on discussions with several industry experts and the authors' multi-decadal experience using machine learning and traditional quantitative finance at investment banks, asset management and securities trading firms, this position article identifies the major red flags and sets out guidelines and solutions to avoid them. Examples using supervised learning and reinforcement in investment management & trading are provided to illustrate best practices.

Dixon, Matthew Francis, and Igor Halperin. “The Four Horsemen of Machine Learning in Finance.” Available at SSRN 3453564 (2019).

1. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3453564

1. 论文是关于什么的？[请提供该论文的简要摘要。]

2. 这篇论文的长处和短处是什么？[请以以下角度评述：（a）创新（研究问题、建模、方法等）；（b）相关性（研究问题、发现等）；（c）严谨性（适当的方法、分析的正确性等）]

研究问题、建模、方法等

研究问题、发现

适当的方法、分析的正确性等

3.如果有的话，潜在改进的主要地方是什么？[如果这些关键要求和建议能够被适当处理，请重点关注能使文章发表的关键要求和建议。如果你看到不可逾越的障碍，请清楚地描述你的担忧。如果能为编辑和作者提供具体有建设性的意见最好不过了，并在可能的情况下，提出可行的建议。同样，应避免含糊不清和/或含糊不清的批评。]

4.如果有的话，潜在改进的微小地方是什么？[再次，请具体说明。]

5.有没有机会做一项新的研究？